The Health of the Charter Public School Movement: A State-by-State Analysis

The Health of the Charter Public School Movement: A State-by-State Analysis SECOND EDITION MARCH 2016

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 Methodological Overview 5 The 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings 10 43 State Profiles 174 Appendix A: Rubric 176 Appendix B: Data Sources Acknowledgments Todd Ziebarth, senior vice president, state advocacy and support at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (National Alliance), and Louann Bierlein Palmer, professor of educational leadership and policy at Western Michigan University (WMU), wrote this report. Extensive data compilation was provided by Susan Aud Pendergrass, senior director, research and evaluation at the National Alliance; Wentana Gebru, manager, research and evaluation at the National Alliance; Rebecca David, research assistant at the National Alliance; Russ Simnick, senior director, state advocacy and support at the National Alliance; Emily Schultz, senior manager, state advocacy and support at the National Alliance; Jenn Hatfield, research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute; Kathy Wilson, doctoral student in evaluation, measurement, and research at WMU; and Public Impact. Ziebarth and Bierlein Palmer compiled and shared data and other information with those working at state charter public school associations, charter public school resource centers, and other organizations. The National Alliance acknowledges and thanks such individuals for their invaluable feedback. Any errors and omissions in this report are the responsibility of the authors, not the individuals from the states.

Introduction Since the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (National Alliance) released the first edition of The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-by-State Analysis in October 2014, we have received both encouraging words for releasing the report and constructive criticism for how we can improve it going forward. The second edition of this report builds on the solid foundation of the inaugural version, while making adjustments to account for some of the helpful feedback that we received. As a reminder, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the health of each state s charter public school movement, as a companion to our annual evaluation of the strength of each state s charter public school law. One potentially helpful way to understand the difference between the two reports is to think of one as focused on inputs (law rankings) and the other as focused on outputs (health-of-the-movement rankings). Through these two reports, we hope to shine a light on those states that are creating supportive policy environments as well as those states that are creating healthy movements. We also aim to provide information via these reports on where states can strengthen both their laws and their implementation of those laws moving forward. In this report, we provide data about the health of the charter public school movement along 13 indicators of growth, innovation, and quality. Three notable changes in this year s report make comparisons between it and last year s report challenging. First, we changed the criteria that states had to meet in order to be scored and ranked. In last year s report, a state had to meet two criteria: Its charter school movement served at least 1 percent of its public school students in and it participated in the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO s) National Charter School Study 2013. 1 A total of 26 states met these criteria. In this year s report, a state had to meet three criteria: Its charter school movement served at least 2 percent of its public school students in 2014-15, it participated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013, and it had a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. A total of 18 states met these criteria. Second, this report contains four quality indicators two more than the previous year s report. The two quality indicators used in the first edition of the report were drawn from CREDO s National Charter Schools Study 2013, which remains the only source of student outcome data across a large number of states that allows a meaningful and fair comparison of similar students within charter public and traditional public schools. But the most recent available CREDO data are from 2010-11. To mitigate this problem, we added two new quality indicators drawn from state accountability systems. Our goal with these indicators is to ascertain if state charter school movements are improving over time through two avenues: (1) increasing the percentage of charters receiving the top ratings in state accountability systems; and (2) decreasing the percentage of charters receiving the bottom ratings. Given the ever-changing nature of state accountability systems, it is not surprising that only 18 states are included in this year s report. To further address this problem in the long term, the National Alliance is developing its own model to assess charter public school performance on state tests. We hope this model will allow us to include a broader number of states in the next edition of this report. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 1

Introduction The third and final notable change is how we address innovation in this report. As we stated in last year s report, innovation is one of the foundational values of the charter public school movement. However, one can define innovation in any number of ways. Furthermore, no matter how innovation is defined, finding comparable, cross-state data about its existence in charter public schools is challenging. While all options were imperfect, we decided in last year s report to use data from a spring 2012 survey of charter public schools that asked school leaders about a variety of issues, including educational focus and instructional delivery at their schools. 2 For this year s report, building off the American Enterprise Institute s Measuring Diversity in Charter School Offerings, we categorized each charter school via one or more of 13 potential special focuses (e.g., no excuses, purposely diverse, public policy, and citizenship). With this approach we intended to determine whether a variety of types of charter public schools are being created in states to meet a diverse set of student needs. We will continue to explore ways to measure innovation across states for future editions of this report. As in last year s report, this year s edition not only shares what we found for each state but also compares our existing law rankings with these health-of-the-movement rankings. For the most part, those states with higher-ranked charter public school laws also fared well in our health-ofthe-movement rankings. However, a small number of states with higher-ranked charter public school laws did not fare as well in our health-ofthe-movement rankings. We speculate that this disconnect is largely due to the time lag between the states policy changes and the impact of those changes on authorizers and schools (all of these states have made major policy improvements to address shortcomings). Also, a small number of states had lower-ranked charter public school laws but fared well in our health-of-the-movement rankings. These states have been able to achieve these results in spite of weak laws largely through a combination of a small number of authorizers implementing solid practices that are not required by their states charter public school laws and a select number of high-performing charter public schools smartly replicating and expanding. Last, we acknowledge that our definition of a healthy movement is limited by what data we can collect across states. Several other elements of a healthy movement are not included here because we cannot measure them. But that doesn t mean they are not important. For example, quality beyond test scores can be determined several ways, some of which are more qualitative in nature. A healthy movement needs to have charter schools that are not only succeeding on state tests but also knocking it out of the park on these other determinants of quality. Overall, there is much to celebrate about the health of the charter public school movement. However, continued efforts to strengthen the movement are essential, even in those states where the current movement is relatively healthy. We hope this report aids charter public school supporters across the country as they engage in this critical work. NINA REES President and CEO National Alliance for Public Charter Schools TODD ZIEBARTH Senior Vice President of State Advocacy and Support National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 1 Center for Research on Education Outcomes, National Charter School Study 2013 (Stanford, CA: Author, 2013). 2 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Instructional Delivery and Focus of Public Charter Schools: Results from the NAPCS National Charter School Survey, School Year 2011-12 (Washington, DC, Author, June 2013). 2 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Methodological Overview To assess the health of the charter public school movement across the country, we developed a list of indicators for which we collected data. These indicators fall into the broad categories of growth, innovation, and quality. Table 1 lists the indicators by category. TABLE 1: Indicators Used to Assess the Health of the Charter Public School Movement GROWTH 1. Public school share 2. Public school student share 3. Students by race and ethnicity 4. Students in special populations (i.e., free and reduced-price lunch status, special education status, and English learner status) 5. Schools by geographic distribution 6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in charter public schools 7. New charter public schools opened over the past five years 8. Charter public schools closed over the past five years INNOVATION 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus QUALITY 10. Additional days of learning in reading 11. Additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change within top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change within bottom categories in state accountability system In addition to gathering the data for each of the above indicators, we created a rubric to use in our assessment of these data for each state. Perhaps most notably, this effort involved creating value statements and weights for each indicator. These value statements and weights were developed with significant input from a wide variety of charter public school stakeholders. The indicators are weighted from 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest weight and 4 being the highest weight. Table 2 provides an overview of the value statements and weights for each indicator. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 3

Methodological Overview TABLE 2: Value Statements and Weights Indicator Value Statement Weight 1. Public school share 2. Public school student share 3. Students by race and ethnicity 4. Students in special populations (i.e., free and reduced-price lunch status, special education status, and English learner status) 5. Schools by geographic distribution 6. Communities with more than 10 percent of students in charter public schools 7. New charter public schools opened over the past five years 8. Charter public schools closed over the past five years 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus 10. Additional days of learning in reading 11. Additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change within top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change within bottom categories in state accountability system To ensure that a wide variety of options are available, the higher the percentage, the better. To ensure that a wide variety of student needs are being met, the higher the percentage, the better. It is preferable for charter public schools to serve a slightly higher percentage of historically underserved students (i.e., racial minorities) than traditional public schools. It is preferable for charter public schools to serve a slightly higher percentage of historically underserved students (i.e., free and reduced-price lunch students, special education students, and English learner students) than traditional public schools. It is preferable for charter public schools to serve a slightly higher percentage of historically underserved students (i.e., nonsuburban) than traditional public schools. To ensure that a wide variety of options are available, the higher the number of communities, the better. To ensure that a wide variety of options are available, the higher the growth rate, the better. It is preferable to have a small and consistent percentage of schools close, but the percentage should not be too high, as such a number reveals inadequate approval and oversight processes. To ensure that a wide variety of options are available, the higher the percentage, the better. It is preferable for charter public school students to have outcomes greater than traditional public school students. It is preferable for charter public school students to have outcomes greater than traditional public school students. It is preferable for the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top categories to increase. It is preferable for the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom categories to decrease. 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 After weighting each indicator, we rated each of them on a scale of 0 to 4 for 18 of the 43 jurisdictions with charter public school laws (see Appendix A for more details). These 18 states were selected because their movements served at least 2 percent of their public school students in 2014-15, they participated in the Center for Research on Education Outcomes National Charter School Study 2013, and they had a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and 2013-14. We then multiplied the rating by the weight for each indicator and added them up to get a total score for each state. The highest possible score is 132. We acknowledge that the indicators, value statements, weights, and ratings can be (and, in fact, were and will continue to be) heavily debated. We will continue to monitor data on these indicators and make necessary adjustments to them and their accompanying value statements, weights, and ratings going forward. In addition to assessing states on these 13 indicators, we also felt it was important to provide data for each state on three other indicators: Percentage of start-up charter public schools versus conversion charter public schools; Information about charter authorizers; and Information about virtual charter public schools and the students who attend them. These additional data help shed further light on the dynamics within a state s movement but are not considered in the scoring. 4 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

The 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings Table 3 presents the 2016 health of the charter public school movement rankings. As a reminder, we focused on states that met three criteria: Their charter school movement served at least 2 percent of their public school students in 2014, they participated in the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO s) National Charter School Study 2013, and they had a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. 3 TABLE 3: 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings 4 Ranking State Score (132 Possible Points) 1 D.C. 106 2 Indiana 88 3 Michigan 85 4 Massachusetts 82 5 Louisiana 78 6 Florida 77 7 Arizona 77 8 Rhode Island 71 9 Colorado 69 10 Missouri 68 11 Texas 68 12 Nevada 65 13 Ohio 64 14 Georgia 58 15 Pennsylvania 54 16 New Mexico 48 17 Utah 48 18 Oregon 45 THE TWO ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM: D.C. VERSUS OREGON At the top of the rankings is D.C. s charter public school movement. D.C. s movement landed at the top spot because it scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 50 percent of D.C. s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 44 percent of D.C. s public school students were charter students. In, D.C. s charter public schools served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (8 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2009-10 and, 24 charter public schools closed in D.C., a 4.5 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 55 percent of the state s charter public schools were special focus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (72 more days in reading and 101 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 5

The 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom category of the D.C. Public Charter School Board s accountability system decreased by 4 percentage points (from 12 percent to 8 percent). On the flip side, the state at the bottom of the list is Oregon. Oregon landed near the bottom because it fared relatively poorly on the following indicators: In 2014-15, only 5 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT RANKINGS VER- SUS STATE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW RANKINGS In addition to ranking the health of the charter public school movements across the country, we also wanted to know how these rankings compared with our most recent rankings of state charter public school laws. Table 4 reveals that comparison. States that are green had highstrength laws, states that are yellow had mediumstrength laws, and states that are orange had low-strength laws. During, the state s charter public schools served a lower percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (14 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. During, charter public schools in Oregon served a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (28 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. During 2014-15, only one community in the state had more than 10 percent of its public school students in charters. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth (22 days less in reading and 50 days less in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. 3 Center for Research on Education Outcomes, National Charter School Study 2013 (Stanford, CA: Author, 2013). 4 In the case of a tie, we first looked at each state s performance for reading gains in CREDO s 2013 National Charter Schools Study. Whichever state had the highest performance was ranked higher. If the states had the same performance, we looked at each state s performance for math gains in CREDO s 2013 National Charter Schools Study. Whichever state had the highest performance was ranked higher. 6 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

The 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings TABLE 4: Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings versus State Charter Public School Law Rankings State Health of the Charter Public School Movement Ranking (out of 18) Points (out of 132) State Charter Public School Law Ranking (out of 43) Points (out of 228) D.C. 1 106 12 153 Indiana 2 88 1 177 Michigan 3 85 21 143 Massachusetts 4 82 11 153 Louisiana 5 78 4 167 Florida 6 77 9 156 Arizona 7 77 10 154 Rhode Island 8 71 35 118 Colorado 9 69 5 165 Missouri 10 68 30 132 Texas 11 68 25 137 Nevada 12 65 8 162 Ohio 13 64 23 140 Georgia 14 58 18 147 Pennsylvania 15 54 27 133 New Mexico 16 48 16 150 Utah 17 48 20 145 Oregon 18 45 28 133 States That Did Not Receive a Health of the Charter Public School Movement Ranking Alabama Not ranked 2 175 Minnesota Not ranked 3 174 Maine Not ranked 6 163 New York Not ranked 7 162 South Carolina Not ranked 13 152 North Carolina Not ranked 14 152 California Not ranked 15 152 Mississippi Not ranked 17 149 Oklahoma Not ranked 19 147 Idaho Not ranked 22 141 Delaware Not ranked 24 138 Hawaii Not ranked 26 136 Arkansas Not ranked 29 132 Connecticut Not ranked 31 129 Illinois Not ranked 32 129 New Hampshire Not ranked 33 128 Tennessee Not ranked 34 124 New Jersey Not ranked 36 118 Wisconsin Not ranked 37 110 Wyoming Not ranked 38 87 Virginia Not ranked 39 80 Alaska Not ranked 40 78 Iowa Not ranked 41 63 Kansas Not ranked 42 60 Maryland Not ranked 43 49 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 7

The 2016 Health of the Charter Public School Movement Rankings In summary, many of the states with highstrength laws (those in green) landed within the top level of the health-of-the-movement rankings, many of those states with medium-strength laws (those in yellow) landed within the middle of the health-of-the-movement rankings, and all of the states with low-strength laws (those in orange) were not ranked. Beyond this broad summary, here are three big takeaways from the comparison of the health-ofthe-movement rankings and the law rankings. First, supportive laws are necessary but not sufficient. To quote from our model law: It is important to note that a strong charter law is a necessary but insufficient factor in driving positive results for charter public schools. Experience with charter public schools across the country has shown that there are five primary ingredients of a successful public charter school environment in a state, as demonstrated by strong student results: Supportive laws and regulations (both what is on the books and how it is implemented); Quality authorizers; Effective charter support organizations, such as state charter associations and resource centers; Outstanding school leaders and teachers; and Engaged parents and community members. Second, there are exceptions to the rule. Some states charter movements have achieved strong results in spite of lower-ranked laws confirming that there are always exceptions to the rule. However, these charter school movements are relatively small in size. How do they do it? It is usually through a combination of authorizers implementing solid practices that are not required by their state laws (but are part of our model law) and highperforming charter public schools smartly replicating and expanding. This seems to happen in low-ranked states with only one or two authorizers, like Rhode Island. Third, it takes time for supportive laws to move the needle in states that have experienced challenges. Some states that rank high in our law rankings ended up there because they passed legislation to address some of the challenges that had emerged in their charter public school movements. These bills were relatively aligned with our model law. Because of the time lag between when these policy changes happen and when they begin to affect student results, we sometimes see states that are ranked high in the law rankings but are not yet achieving consistently strong results in the health-of-themovement rankings (e.g., Nevada and New Mexico). While it is critical to get the law right, it is equally critical to ensure these additional ingredients exist in a state s charter school movement. Some states with supportive laws (those that rank high in our annual law rankings) have implemented them well and have therefore achieved strong results. Conversely, other states with supportive laws have implemented them inconsistently and have therefore achieved uneven results. 8 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 9

Alaska Alaska enacted its charter school law in 1995. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #40 out of 43, making it one of the weakest laws in the country. While the law does not cap charter school growth, it allows only local school districts to authorize charter public schools and provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO s) National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state needed to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Alaska s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 27 charter public schools and 6,224 charter public school students in Alaska, constituting 5 percent of the state s public schools and 5 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, on average, the state s charter public schools served lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority students (15 percentage points less) and free and reducedprice lunch students (28 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 89 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 98 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, two new charter public schools opened in Alaska. The average annual open rate in the state was 1.5 percent. Between 2009-10 and, one charter public school closed in Alaska, an average annual closure rate of 0.7 percent. In 2012-13, 30 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. 10 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Alaska Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 8 percentage points (from 70 percent to 78 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system stayed the same (4 percent). In 2014-15, 93 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 7 percent were conversions. In 2014-15, only local school districts were allowed to authorize charter public schools in the state. Eight of them had done so as of that year. In, zero full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Alaska. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 11

Alaska Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 27 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 6,224 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 64 49 15 Black 2 3-1 Hispanic 5 7-2 Asian 3 6-3 Other 26 35-9 minority 36 51-15 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 16 44-28 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 44-28 City 30 18 12 Suburb 11 2 9 Town 44 17 27 Rural 15 63-48 nonsuburban 89 98-9 2014-15 0 2010-11 2 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 2014-15 0 number 2009-10 1 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 number 2 1 Average annual open rate 1.5% Average annual closure rate 0.7% 5 5 12 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Alaska Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 0 Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 11% Montessori/Waldorf 19% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 0 Vocational training 0 Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 30% 2012-13 Difference 5 stars 41 39-2 4 stars 29 39 10 70 78 8 2012-13 Difference 2 stars 4 4 0 1 stars 0 0 0 4 4 0 s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers 93 Number of charter schools Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 8 27 3 100 SEAs - - - - ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 7 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 13

Arizona RANKING: #7 (out of 18) SCORE: 77 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Arizona enacted its charter public school law in 1994. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #10 out of 43. Arizona s law does not cap charter growth, allows multiple authorizing entities, and provides a fair amount of autonomy to its charter public schools. Over the past few years, Arizona has also taken steps to strengthen the accountability provisions in its law. However, the law still provides inequitable funding to public charter students by barring their access to significant buckets of funding. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Arizona s charter public school movement ranked #7 out of 18, scoring 77 points out of 132. Arizona scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 28 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 17 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In 2014-15, 17 communities had more than 10 percent of public school students in public charters. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 215 public charters opened, a 6.9 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 96 charter public schools closed, a 3.2 percent average annual closure rate. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 5 percentage points (from 57 percent to 62 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system decreased by 8 percentage points (from 19 percent to 11 percent). Arizona scored relatively low on the following indicators: In, charter public schools served a lower percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (9 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. In, charter public schools in Arizona served a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (12 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. 1 Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth, on average (22 fewer days in reading and 29 fewer days in math), when compared with traditional public school students. 14 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Arizona In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Arizona: In 2012-13, 79 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 77 percent of traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 36 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. During 2012-13, 87 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 13 percent were conversions. Arizona law allows charter applicants to apply to a local school board, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools (ASBCS), the state board of education, a university, a community college district, or a group of community college districts. However, the state board of education has a self-imposed moratorium on charter authorizing, so ASBCS currently oversees all schools approved by both state boards, which means that ASBCS oversaw 88 percent of the state s public charters in 2014-15. Also, 24 local school districts oversaw 11 percent of the state s public charters, and one university oversaw 1 percent of the state s public charters that year. 2 Concluding Thoughts Arizona has a relatively good charter law, but it still provides inequitable funding to public charter students by barring their access to significant buckets of funding. A relatively high percentage of Arizona s public schools and students are charter schools and students, showing a high demand for these innovative public school options. Although Arizona s charters currently serve a lower percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, in 2013, the Arizona Charter Schools Association launched New Schools for Phoenix to increase the number of charters serving these students. The goal of this organization is to open, replicate, or reform 25 A-rated schools, enrolling 12,500 low-income students in Phoenix by 2020, and to recruit and equip highly motivated educators to fuel student success in urban education. While Arizona s charters did not perform as well as their peers in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013, the most recent data within that report are from 2010-11. Since that time, Arizona charter school supporters, led by the Arizona Charter Schools Association, have implemented several efforts to improve achievement. Taken together, these changes will better promote the growth of highquality charters and the closure of chronically low-performing charters. In fact, more current data than the CREDO study show that the percentage of charters in the top two categories of the state s accountability system is increasing, while the percentage of charters in the bottom category of the state s accountability system is decreasing. In, two full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Arizona, serving 1,661 students (.01 percent of the state s charter public school population). 1 According to research conducted by the Arizona Charter Schools Association, only 46 percent of charter schools provided free and reduced-price lunch data in 2014. This number illustrates the challenges in determining the level of poverty in charter public schools. 2 As of 2014, new charter public school applicants cannot apply to local school boards. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 15

Arizona Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators Score 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2014-15 Number of charter public schools 623 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 28 4 3 12 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 2014-15 Number of charter public school students 190,000 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 17 4 3 12 Charters Traditional Difference White 48 39 9 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity Black 6 5 1 Hispanic 36 46-10 Asian 4 2 2 1 2 2 Other 6 8-2 minority 52 61-9 Free and reduced-price lunch status 40 52-12 4. Percentage of students in special populations Special education status English language learner status N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 special student populations 40 52-12 City 58 43 15 Suburb 21 23-2 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 2012-13 Town 10 15-5 Rural 11 19-8 2 2 4 nonsuburban 79 77 2 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 2014-15 17 4 1 4 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2010-11 21 2011-12 47 2012-13 29 87 2014-15 31 number 215 2009-10 20 2010-11 21 2011-12 26 2012-13 16 13 number 96 Average annual open rate 6.9% 2 3 6 Average annual closure rate 3.2% 4 3 12 16 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Arizona Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 1% STEM 3% Arts 3% Classical 4% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0.2% International/Foreign language 1% Montessori/Waldorf 10% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 11% Military 0 Vocational training 3% Public policy/citizenship 0.2% percentage of schools that are special focus 36% Score 2 2 4-22 0 3 0-29 0 3 0 2012-13 Difference A 30 34 4 B 27 28 1 57 62 5 2012-13 Difference D 18 8-10 F 1 3 2 19 11-8 3 3 9 4 3 12 s Grand Points 77 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 89 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 11 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 24 71 3 11 SEAs 1 41 41 7 ICBs 1 506 506 81 NEGs - - - - HEIs 1 5 5 1 NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 1,661 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools 0.01 Number of virtual charter schools 2 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0.003 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 17

Arkansas Arkansas enacted its charter school law in 1995. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #29 out of 43. While the state law has a cap on charter school growth, it is structured in a way that allows ample growth. Although the state law provides adequate accountability provisions, it includes only a single authorizing path and provides inadequate autonomy and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Arkansas movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, 4 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 4 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, the state s charter public schools served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (15 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In, the state s charter public schools served a lower percentage of free and reducedprice lunch students (2 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 80 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 89 percent of traditional public schools. During 2014-15, only two communities in the state had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2009-10 and, 27 charter public schools opened in Arkansas, a 12 percent average annual open rate. 18 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Arkansas Between 2009-10 and, 11 charter public schools closed in Arkansas, a 5.6 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 64 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth (22 fewer days in reading and 22 fewer days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. In 2014-15, 58 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 42 percent were conversions. In 2014-15, Arkansas allowed only its state department of education to serve as an authorizer, so 100 percent of the state s 45 schools were authorized by the state department of education that year. In, one full-time virtual charter public school operated in Arkansas, educating 1,334 students (8 percent of the state s charter public school population). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 19

Arkansas Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 45 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 19,179 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 49 64-15 Black 39 20 19 Hispanic 8 12-4 Asian 2 1 1 Other 2 3-1 minority 51 36 15 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 59 61-2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59 61-2 City 42 21 21 Suburb 20 11 9 Town 22 22 0 Rural 16 46-30 nonsuburban 79 89-10 2014-15 2 2010-11 4 2011-12 4 2012-13 4 9 2014-15 6 number 27 2009-10 3 2010-11 3 2011-12 3 2012-13 2 0 number 11 Average annual open rate 12.0% Average annual closure rate 5.6% 4 4 20 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Arkansas Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 18% STEM 26% Arts 15% Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 0 Dropout/Expulsion recovery 3% Military 0 Vocational training 3% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. conversions 2014-15 Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers 58 64% -22-22 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Number of charter schools Average number of charters per authorizer - - 42 Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs - - - - SEAs 1 45 45 100 ICBs - - - 0 NEGs - - - 0 HEIs - - - 0 NFPs - - - 0 Number of virtual charter school students 1,334 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 1 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 8 3 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 21

California California enacted its charter public school law in 1992. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, California s law ranked #15 out of 43. Highlights from the law include the following: While the state law has a cap on charter school growth, it is structured in a way that allows ample growth. Although the state law requires charter school applicants to initially submit their proposals to local school districts (in most cases), the state law provides a robust appellate process. The state law provides a fair amount of autonomy to charters but lacks some aspects of accountability (such as requiring performance-based contracts between charter public schools and authorizers). The state has made notable strides in recent years to provide more equitable funding to charters, although some work still remains. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. California s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, 12 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In, 9 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, the state s charter public schools served a lower percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (7 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. While charters served a higher proportion of black students (3 percentage points more), they served lower proportions of Hispanic and Asian students (6 percentage points less for Hispanics and 5 percentage points less for Asians). In, the state s charter public schools served smaller percentages of free and reducedprice lunch students (3 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. 22 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

California In 2012-13, 71 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 59 percent of traditional public schools. During 2014-15, 34 communities had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 521 public charters opened in California, an 8.8 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 151 charter public schools closed in California, a 2.7 percent average annual closure rate. As of 2014-15, 324 local and county school boards had authorized 1,157 charter public schools (98 percent of the state s total number of charter public schools) and the state board of education had authorized 23 charter public schools (2 percent). In, 32 full-time virtual charter public schools operated in California, serving 21,161 students (4 percent of the state s charter public school population). In 2012-13, 33 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in reading (22 additional days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited less academic growth in math (seven fewer days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. During 2014-15, 83 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 17 percent were conversions. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 23

California Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 1,184 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 544,980 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 31 24 7 Black 9 6 3 Hispanic 48 54-6 Asian 7 12-5 Other 5 4 1 minority 69 76-7 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 12 55 58-3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 55 58-3 City 54 37 17 Suburb 29 41-12 Town 7 9-2 Rural 10 12-2 nonsuburban 79 59 20 2014-15 34 2010-11 114 2011-12 102 2012-13 108 109 2014-15 88 number 521 2009-10 15 2010-11 28 2011-12 29 2012-13 43 36 number 151 Average annual open rate 8.8% Average annual closure rate 2.7% 9 24 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

California Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools reporting use of various innovative practices Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 5% STEM 5% Arts 4% Classical 2% Purposely diverse 0.4% Single sex 0.3% International/Foreign language 4% Montessori/Waldorf 12% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 2% Military 1% Vocational training 2% Public policy/citizenship 0.3% percentage of schools that are special focus s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 83 33% 22-7 - - Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 17 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 324 1,157 4 98 SEAs 1 23 23 2 ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 21,161 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 32 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 4 3 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 25

Colorado RANKING: #9 (out of 18) SCORE: 69 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Colorado enacted its charter public school law in 1993. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #5 out of 43. Colorado does not cap charter school growth, provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability to charters, and provides multiple authorizers or a robust appellate process for charter school applicants. However, it still provides inequitable funding to charters. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Colorado s charter school movement ranked #9 out of 18, scoring 69 points out of 132. Colorado scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 12 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 11 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In 2014-15, 13 communities in Colorado had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in reading (seven additional days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Colorado scored relatively low on the following indicators: In, the state s charter public schools served lower percentages of free and reducedprice lunch students (8 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth in math (seven fewer days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Colorado: In, the state s charter public schools served an identical percentage of racial and ethnic minority students when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 68 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 70 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 69 public charters opened in Colorado, a 6.4 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 14 charter public schools closed in Colorado, a 1.4 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 39 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. 26 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Colorado Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 2 percentage points (from 88 percent to 90 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system decreased by 2 percentage points (from 12 percent to 10 percent). During 2014-15, 96 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 4 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, 45 local school boards had authorized 180 charter public schools (84 percent of the state s total number of public charters) and the state s independent charter board had authorized 34 charter public schools (16 percent). In, eight full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Colorado, serving 9,895 students (10 percent of the state s charter public school population). Concluding Thoughts Colorado has a relatively good charter law, but it still needs to provide more equitable funding to charter students. In Colorado, a relatively high percentage of the state s public schools and students are charter schools and students, showing a high demand for these innovative public school options. While Colorado s charters serve a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, many charter schools face challenges when it comes to accessing adequate educational facilities space, including the lack of full-service kitchens that allow a charter school to receive federal funding for free and reduced-price meals. The lack of such accessible space can lead to a reduction in the number of free and reducedprice lunch students attending charters or in the number of charter schools participating in the free and reduced-price lunch program (although they may still serve students eligible for the program). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 27

Colorado Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 214 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 101,359 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 55 55 0 Black 6 5 1 Hispanic 32 33-1 Asian 3 3 0 Other 4 4 0 minority 45 45 0 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 12 11 35 43-8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 43-8 City 47 32 15 Suburb 32 30 2 Town 5 13-8 Rural 16 26-10 nonsuburban 68 70-2 Score 3 3 9 3 3 9 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 4 2014-15 13 4 1 4 2010-11 14 2011-12 13 2012-13 9 17 2014-15 16 number 69 2009-10 5 2010-11 1 2011-12 3 2012-13 3 2 number 14 Average annual open rate 6.4% 2 3 6 Average annual closure rate 1.4% 2 3 6 28 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Colorado Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 3% STEM 7% Arts 1% Classical 9% Purposely diverse 1% Single sex 2% International/Foreign language 3% Montessori/Waldorf 11% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 4% Military 0 Vocational training 2% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 39% 2012-13 Difference Performance 73 73 0 Improvement 15 17 2 88 90 2 Priority Improvement 2012-13 Difference 9 6-3 Turnaround 3 4 1 12 10-2 Score 2 2 4 7 2 3 6-7 1 3 3 2 3 6 2 3 6 s Grand Points 69 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 97 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer LEAs 45 180 4 84 SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 34 34 16 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 9,895 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 8 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 10 4 Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer 3 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 29

Connecticut Connecticut enacted its charter public school law in 1996. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #31 out of 43, making it one of the weakest laws in the country. The law contains significant restrictions on charter school growth; includes a single authorizer; and provides inadequate autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Connecticut s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 22 charter public schools and 8,036 charter public school students in Connecticut, constituting 2 percent of the state s public schools and 1 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, on average, charter public schools in Connecticut served higher percentages of racial and ethnic minority students (50 percentage points more) and free and reduced-price lunch students (36 percentage points more) as compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 83 percent of the state s charter public schools were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 47 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, five new charter public schools opened in Connecticut, a 4.5 percent average annual open rate. 30 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Connecticut Between 2009-10 and, one charter public school closed in Connecticut, a 1.1 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 72 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. During 2014-15, 100 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups. The state board of education is the primary authorizer in the state. As of 2014-15, it had authorized 21 of the state s 22 charter public schools. A local school board had authorized the state s other charter public school. In, zero full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Connecticut. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 31

Connecticut Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 22 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 8,036 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 9 59-50 Black 61 12 49 Hispanic 26 21 5 Asian 2 5-3 Other 2 3-1 minority 91 41 50 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 73 37 36 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73 37 36 City 78 28 50 Suburb 17 53-36 Town 6 4 2 Rural 0 15-15 nonsuburban 79 70 9 2014-15 0 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 1 2014-15 4 number 5 2009-10 0 2010-11 1 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 number 1 Average annual open rate 4.5% Average annual closure rate 1.1% 2 1 32 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Connecticut Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 48% STEM 8% Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 8% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 4% Military 0 Vocational training 4% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 100 72% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 1 1 1 5 SEAs 1 21 21 95 ICBs - - - 0 NEGs - - - 0 HEIs - - - 0 NFPs - - - 0 Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 0 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 33

Delaware Delaware enacted its charter public school law in 1995. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #24 out of 43. Delaware allows multiple authorizing entities and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability to its charter schools. However, it has enacted a moratorium on growth in Wilmington and provides inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Delaware s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 24 charter public schools and 11,346 charter public school students in Delaware, constituting 11 percent of the state s public schools and 8 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, charter public schools in Delaware served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (4 percentage points more) but a lower percentage of free and reducedprice lunch students (2 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 68 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 45 percent of traditional public schools. In 2014-15, three communities in Delaware had more than 10 percent of public school students in charters. 34 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Delaware Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, seven new charter public schools opened in Delaware, a 5.8 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, two charter public schools closed in Delaware, a 1.9 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 55 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. During 2014-15, 100 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups. The state allows local school boards and the state board of education to serve as authorizers. As of 2014-15, one local school board had authorized three charter public schools, and the state board of education had authorized 21 charter public schools. During, zero full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Delaware. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 35

Delaware Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 24 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 11,346 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 44 48-4 Black 40 30 10 Hispanic 8 15-7 Asian 6 4 2 Other 2 3-1 minority 56 52 4 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 11 38 40-2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 40-2 City 57 13 44 Suburb 32 55-23 Town 4 16-12 Rural 7 16-9 nonsuburban 68 45 23 2014-15 3 2010-11 1 2011-12 3 2012-13 0 0 2014-15 3 number 7 2009-10 1 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 1 0 number 2 Average annual open rate 5.8% Average annual closure rate 1.9% 8 36 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Delaware Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 25% STEM 5% Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 10% International/Foreign language 10% Montessori/Waldorf 0 Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 5% Vocational training 5% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 100 55% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 1 3 3 13 SEAs 1 21 21 87 ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 0 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 37

District of Columbia RANKING: #1 (out of 18) SCORE: 106 POINTS (out of 132) 3 Law Summary The District of Columbia enacted its charter public school law in 1996. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #12 out of 43. D.C. s law has a cap on charters that allows for ample growth, includes an independent charter board as the authorizer, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. However, it also provides inequitable funding to charters. Health-of-the-Movement Summary D.C. s charter public school movement ranked #1 out of 18, scoring 106 points out of 116. D.C. scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 50 percent of D.C. s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 44 percent of D.C. s public school students were charter students. In, D.C. s charter public schools served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (8 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2009-10 and, 24 charter public schools closed in D.C., a 4.5 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 55 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (72 more days in reading and 101 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom category of the D.C. Public Charter School Board s accountability system decreased by 4 percentage points (from 12 percent to 8 percent). In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in D.C.: Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 39 public charters opened in D.C., a 7 percent average annual open rate. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top category of the D.C. Public Charter School Board s accountability system decreased by 2 percentage points (from 36 percent to 34 percent). During 2014-15, 94 percent of D.C. s charter public schools were start-ups and 6 percent were conversions. 38 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

District of Columbia In 2014-15, D.C. allowed only the D.C. Public Charter School Board to serve as an authorizer, so the D.C. Public Charter School Board oversaw 100 percent of D.C. s 112 charter public schools that year. During, one full-time virtual charter public school operated in D.C., serving 1,604 students. Concluding Thoughts D.C. has a relatively good charter law. It has laid a strong foundation for the creation of a healthy charter public school movement. However, the law still needs to provide more equitable funding and facilities support to charter students. D.C. has a relatively high percentage of special-focus schools, showing that charters are providing a diverse array of options for students and educators. D.C. s charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as demonstrated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 and the D.C. Public Charter School Board s accountability system. A relatively high percentage of D.C. s public schools and students are charter schools and students, showing a high demand for these innovative public school options. D.C. s charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option. 3 Only 10 of the 13 indicators were applicable to the District of Columbia. D.C. received 90 out of 112 points for those nine indicators, or 80 percent. We then multiplied the total points possible for all 13 indicators (132) by 80 percent to get a score comparable to the other states. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 39

District of Columbia Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 112 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 37,684 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 4 12-8 Black 82 68 14 Hispanic 12 16-4 Asian 1 2-1 Other 1 2-1 minority 96 88 8 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 50 44 99 99 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 99 99 0 City 100 100 0 Suburb 0 0 0 Town 0 0 0 Rural 0 0 0 nonsuburban 100 100 0 Score 4 3 12 4 3 12 3 2 6 N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 N/A 2014-15 1 N/A 1 N/A 2010-11 7 2011-12 10 2012-13 6 4 2014-15 12 number 39 2009-10 6 2010-11 4 2011-12 1 2012-13 3 10 number 24 Average annual open rate 7.0% 2 3 6 Average annual closure rate 4.5% 3 3 9 40 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

District of Columbia Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 14% STEM 4% Arts 3% Classical 3% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 1% International/Foreign language 12% Montessori/Waldorf 13% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 5% Military 1% Vocational training 4% Public policy/citizenship 4% percentage of schools that are special focus 55% 2012-13 Difference Tier I 36 34-2 2012-13 Difference Tier III 12 8-4 Score 3 2 6 72 4 3 12 101 4 3 12 2 3 6 3 3 9 s Grand Points 90 Possible Points 112 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 94 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs - - - - SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 112 112 100 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 1,604 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 1 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 4 1 6 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 41

Florida RANKING: #6 (out of 18) SCORE: 77 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Florida enacted its charter public school law in 1996. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #9 out of 43. Florida does not cap charter growth, provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability, and provides a robust appellate process for charter school applicants. However, the law still provides inequitable funding to charters. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Florida s charter public school movement ranked #6 out of 18, scoring 77 points out of 132. Florida scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 16 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In, the state s charter public schools served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (6 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2014-15, 12 communities in Florida had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 344 public charters opened in Florida, a 10.5 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 101 public charters closed in Florida, a 3.2 percent average annual closure rate. Florida scored relatively low on the following indicators: In, charter public schools in Florida served a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (10 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth in reading (seven fewer days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students, and the same academic growth in math. In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Florida: In 2014-15, 9 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In 2012-13, 46 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 49 percent of the state s traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 35 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. 42 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Florida Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system stayed the same (62 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 1 percentage point (from 17 percent to 18 percent). During 2014-15, 97 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 3 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, 46 local school boards had authorized 650 charter public schools (99.5 percent of the state s total number of charter public schools), and two higher education institutions had authorized three charter public schools (.5 percent). In, 11 full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Florida, serving 1,247 students (.01 percent of the state s charter public school population). Concluding Thoughts Florida has a relatively good charter law, but it still needs to provide more equitable funding and facilities support to charter students. In Florida, a relatively high percentage of the state s public schools are charters, which shows a high demand for these innovative public school options. In Florida, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students than traditional public schools, which shows that charters, in some cases, are serving those students who most need a better public school option. We encourage the state to continue to strengthen school and authorizer accountability, enhance its funding and facilities support to charters, and explore why charters are serving lower percentages of free and reduced-price lunch students. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 43

Florida Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public ischool students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 653 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 250,583 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 35 41-6 Black 22 23-1 Hispanic 38 29 9 Asian 2 3-1 Other 3 4-1 minority 65 59 6 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 16 49 59-10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 59-10 City 35 29 6 Suburb 54 51 3 Town 3 7-4 Rural 8 13-5 nonsuburban 46 49-3 9 Score 4 3 12 2 3 6 3 2 6 1 2 2 2 2 4 2014-15 12 4 1 4 2010-11 57 2011-12 76 2012-13 80 75 2014-15 56 number 344 2009-10 7 2010-11 20 2011-12 20 2012-13 26 28 number 101 Average annual open rate 10.5% 3 3 9 Average annual closure rate 3.2% 4 3 12 44 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Florida Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 1% STEM 5% Arts 5% Classical 2% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 1% International/Foreign language 8% Montessori/Waldorf 6% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 7% Military 0.4% Vocational training 4% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 35% 2012-13 Difference A 42 46 4 B 20 16-4 62 62 0 2012-13 Difference D 10 8-2 F 7 10 3 17 18 1 Score 2 2 4-7 1 3 3 0 1 3 3 2 3 6 2 3 6 s Grand Points 77 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 97 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 46 650 14 99.5 SEAs - - - - ICBs 2 3 1.5 0.5 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 1,247 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools 0.01 Number of virtual charter schools 11 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0.02 3 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 45

Georgia RANKING: #14 (out of 18) SCORE: 58 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Georgia enacted its charter public school law in 1993. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #18 out of 43. Georgia does not cap charter school growth, provides multiple authorizers to charter school applicants, and provides adequate autonomy and accountability. It also provides inequitable funding to charters. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Georgia s charter public school movement ranked #14 out of 18, scoring 58 points out of 132. Georgia scored relatively well on the following indicator: Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 69 public charters opened in Georgia, a 13.4 percent average annual open rate. Georgia scored relatively low on the following indicators: In 2014-15, only 5 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, only 5 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. During, charter public schools in Georgia served a lower percentage of free and reducedprice lunch students (6 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. During 2012-13, 57 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 63 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth in math (14 fewer days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Georgia: During, charter public schools in Georgia served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (1 percentage point more) when compared with traditional public schools. During 2014-15, five communities in Georgia had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2009-10 and, 36 charter public schools closed in Georgia, a 6.5 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 47 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in reading (14 more days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. 46 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Georgia Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system stayed the same (43 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 2 percentage points (from 27 percent to 29 percent). In 2014-15, 68 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 32 percent were conversions. Concluding Thoughts Georgia has a relatively good charter law. However, the law most needs to provide more equitable funding and facilities support to charter students. Georgia is seeing relatively strong growth in the number of new charters opening each year. We encourage the state to explore why charters are serving lower percentages of free and reduced-price lunch students and nonsuburban students than traditional public schools. As of 2014-15, 36 local school boards had authorized 82 charter public schools (85 percent of the state s total number of public charters) and the Georgia Charter Schools Commission had authorized 15 charter public schools (15 percent). In, two full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Georgia, serving 15,659 students (22 percent of the state s charter public school population). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 47

Georgia Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 103 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 83,277 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 42 43-1 Black 40 37 3 Hispanic 11 13-2 Asian 4 4 0 Other 3 3 0 minority 58 57 1 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 56 62-6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 56 62-6 City 35 19 16 Suburb 43 37 6 Town 7 13-6 Rural 15 31-16 nonsuburban 57 63-6 5 5 Score 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 2014-15 5 2 1 2 2010-11 19 2011-12 20 2012-13 7 10 2014-15 13 number 69 2009-10 7 2010-11 8 2011-12 10 2012-13 8 4 number 37 Average annual open rate 13.4% 4 3 12 Average annual closure rate 6.5% 2 3 6 48 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Georgia Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 9% STEM 4% Arts 3% Classical 3% Purposely diverse 2% Single sex 5% International/Foreign language 3% Montessori/Waldorf 6% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 3% Military 0 Vocational training 17% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 47% Score 3 2 6 14 2 3 6-14 0 3 0 2012-13 Difference 2 3 6 90 to 100+ 19 15-4 80 to 89 24 28 4 43 43 0 2012-13 Difference 2 3 6 60 to 69 16 15-1 Less than 60 11 14 3 27 29 2 s Grand Points 58 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 68 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 32 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 36 82 2 85 SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 15 15 15 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 15,659 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 2 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 22 2 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 49

Hawaii Hawaii enacted its charter public school law in 1994. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #26 out of 43. Hawaii does not cap charter school growth and provides a single authorizing option to charter applicants. Hawaii made some substantial improvements to its charter law in 2012, particularly in relation to governance and accountability. However, the law still provides inadequate autonomy and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Hawaii s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 34 charter public schools and 10,413 charter public school students in Hawaii, constituting 12 percent of the state s public schools and 6 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, charter public schools in Hawaii served lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority students (15 percentage points less) and free and reduced-price lunch students (1 percentage point less) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 85 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 61 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, three new charter public schools opened in Hawaii, a 1.8 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, no charter public schools closed in Hawaii. 50 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Hawaii In 2012-13, 45 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 1 percentage point (from 68 percent to 69 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom three categories of the state s accountability system decreased by 1 percentage point (from 32 percent to 31 percent). During 2014-15, 82 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 18 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, the state s independent charter authorizer had authorized 100 percent of the state s 34 public charters. In, zero full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Hawaii. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 51

Hawaii Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 Number of charter public schools 34 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2014-15 Number of charter public school students 10,413 2012-13 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 28 13 15 Black 1 2-1 Hispanic 8 10-2 Asian 12 33-21 Other 51 42 9 minority 72 87-15 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 12 50 51-1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 51-1 City 24 25-1 Suburb 15 39-24 Town 26 25 1 Rural 35 11 24 nonsuburban 85 61 24 2014-15 0 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 1 1 2014-15 1 number 3 2009-10 0 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 number 0 Average annual open rate 1.8% Average annual closure rate 0.0% 6 52 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Hawaii Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 6% Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 3% Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 23% Montessori/Waldorf 13% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 0 Vocational training 3% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - 2012-13 Difference 45% Recognition 3 3 0 4 Stars 65 66 1 68 69 1 2012-13 Difference Focus 16 19 3 Priority 16 12 4 Superintendent's Zone 0 0 0 32 31-1 s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 82 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs - - - - SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 34 34 100 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 18 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 53

Idaho Idaho enacted its charter public school law in 1995. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #22 out of 43. Idaho s law is mostly cap-free, provides multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. However, it still provides inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Idaho s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 48 charter public schools and 20,449 charter public school students in Idaho, constituting 7 percent of the state s public schools and 7 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, charter public schools in Idaho served a lower percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (10 percentage points less) and a lower percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (11 percentage points less) than traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 68 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 81 percent of traditional public schools. During 2014-15, only one community in Idaho had more than 10 percent of its public school students in charters. 54 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Idaho Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 17 new charter public schools opened in Idaho, a 7.1 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, five charter public schools closed in Idaho, a 2.1 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 40 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. In 2014-15, 100 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups. As of 2014-15, 13 local school boards had authorized 15 charter public schools (31 percent of the state s total number of charter public schools), and the state s independent charter board had authorized 33 charter public schools (69 percent). During, five full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Idaho, serving 4,781 students (23 percent of the charter population). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 55

Idaho Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 48 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 20,449 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 86 76 10 Black 1 1 0 Hispanic 9 18-9 Asian 1 1 0 Other 3 4-1 minority 14 24-10 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 37 48-11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 37 48-11 City 19 17 2 Suburb 32 19 13 Town 30 24 6 Rural 19 40-21 nonsuburban 68 81-13 2014-15 1 2010-11 5 2011-12 4 2012-13 1 4 2014-15 3 number 17 2009-10 1 2010-11 1 2011-12 0 2012-13 1 2 Number 5 Average annual open rate 7.1% Average Annual Closure Rate 2.1% 7 7 56 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Idaho Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools reporting use of various innovative practices Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 7% Arts 2% Classical 4% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 2% Montessori/Waldorf 20% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 0 Vocational training 9% Public policy/citizenship 2% percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 100 40% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 13 15 1 31 SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 33 33 69 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 0 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 57

Illinois Illinois enacted its charter public school law in 1996. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #32 out of 43. While Illinois law provides an appellate process for charter school applicants rejected by local school districts and a fair amount of autonomy and accountability, it contains caps on charter school growth and provides inequitable funding for charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Illinois movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, 3 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 3 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, the state s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students when compared with traditional public schools (47 percentage points more). In, charter public schools in Illinois served a significantly higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (38 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 89 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 59 percent of traditional public schools. In 2014-15, only one community in Illinois had more than 10 percent of its public school students in charters. 58 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Illinois Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 56 public charters opened in Illinois, a 7.6 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 10 public charters closed in Illinois, a 1.4 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 48 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (14 more days in reading and 22 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. During 2014-15, 94 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 6 percent were conversions. In 2014-15, 11 local school boards had authorized and opened 144 charter public schools (97 percent of the state s total number of public charters), and the state s independent charter board had authorized four charter public schools (3 percent). During, no full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Illinois. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 59

Illinois Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 148 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 62,429 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 4 51-47 Black 56 16 40 Hispanic 36 24 12 Asian 1 5-4 Other 3 4-1 minority 96 49 47 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 88 50 38 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 50 38 City 84 24 60 Suburb 11 41-30 Town 3 14-11 Rural 2 21-19 nonsuburban 89 59 30 2014-15 1 2010-11 17 2011-12 7 2012-13 10 14 2014-15 8 number 56 2009-10 3 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 3 4 number 10 Average annual open rate 7.6% Average annual closure rate 1.4% 3 3 60 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Illinois Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 4% STEM 5% Arts 2% Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 3% International/Foreign language 3% Montessori/Waldorf 4% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 20% Military 0 Vocational training 5% Public policy/citizenship 11% percentage of schools that are special focus s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 94 48% 14 22 - - Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 11 144 13 97 SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 4 4 3 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 6 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 61

Indiana RANKING: #2 (out of 18) SCORE: 88 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Indiana enacted its charter public school law in 2001. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #1 out of 43. Indiana s law does not cap charter school growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. While the law still provides inequitable funding to charters, the state has made recent strides in closing the funding gap between charter students and their counterparts in traditional public schools. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Indiana s charter public school movement ranked #2 out of 18, scoring 88 points out of 132. Indiana scored relatively well on the following indicators: In, charter public schools in Indiana served a higher percentage of free and reducedprice lunch students (14 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 87 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 78 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 39 public charters opened in Indiana, a 9.9 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 14 public charters closed in Indiana, a 3.7 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 45 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in reading (36 more days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 12 percentage points (from 25 percent to 37 percent). Indiana scored relatively low on the following indicators: In 2014-15, only 4 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, only 4 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In 2014-15, only three communities in Indiana had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Indiana: In, the state s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and 62 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Indiana ethnic minority students (32 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in math (14 more days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system decreased by 1 percentage point (from 57 percent to 56 percent). During 2014-15, 98 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 2 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, three local school boards had authorized four charter public schools (5 percent of the state s total number of public charters), one independent state charter board had authorized nine public charters (11 percent), one noneducational government entity had authorized 30 public charters (38 percent), and four higher education institutions had authorized 37 public charters (46 percent). Concluding Thoughts Indiana has the strongest charter school law in the country. It has laid a strong foundation for the creation of a healthy charter public school movement. While the law still provides inequitable funding to charters, the state has recently made strides in closing the funding gap between charter students and their counterparts in traditional public schools. In Indiana, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option. Indiana also has a relatively high percentage of special-focus schools, showing that charters are providing a diverse array of options for students and educators. Indiana s charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as especially demonstrated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013. In, four full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Indiana, serving 7,016 students (20 percent of the state s charter public school population). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 63

Indiana Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 79 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 37,448 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 40 72-32 Black 44 11 33 Hispanic 10 10 0 Asian 1 2-1 Other 5 5 0 minority 60 28 32 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 63 49 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63 49 14 City 79 25 54 Suburb 13 22-9 Town 4 17-13 Rural 4 36-32 nonsuburban 87 78 9 4 4 Score 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 2 8 3 2 6 2014-15 3 1 1 1 2010-11 8 2011-12 4 2012-13 10 11 2014-15 6 number 39 2009-10 0 2010-11 1 2011-12 3 2012-13 8 2 number 14 Average annual open rate 9.9% 3 3 9 Average annual closure rate 3.7% 4 3 12 64 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Indiana Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 14% STEM 3% Arts 11% Classical 2% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 3% International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 9% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 6% Military 2% Vocational training 5% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 2012-13 Difference 45% A 23 24 1 B 2 13 11 25 37 12 2012-13 Difference D 26 27 1 F 31 29-2 57 56-1 Score 3 2 6 36 4 3 12 14 2 3 6 4 3 12 2 3 6 s Grand Points 88 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 98 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 3 4 1 5 SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 9 9 11 NEGs 1 30 30 38 HEIs 4 37 9 46 NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 7,016 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 4 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 20 5 2 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 65

Iowa Iowa enacted its charter public school law in 2002. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #41 out of 43, making it one of the weakest laws in the country. While the law does not cap charter school growth, it allows only local school district authorizers and provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Iowa s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were three charter public schools and 322 charter public school students in Iowa, constituting.2 percent of the state s public schools and.1 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, charter public schools in Iowa served, on average, more racial and ethnic minority students (39 percentage points more) and more free and reduced-price lunch students (37 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 100 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 92 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, one new charter public school opened in Iowa, an average annual open rate of 6.7 percent. Between 2009-10 and, six charter public schools closed in Iowa, an average annual closure rate of 40 percent. In 2012-13, 67 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. In 2014-15, all three of the state s charter public schools were conversions, meaning there were no start-up charters in the state. In 2014-15, only local school districts were allowed to authorize in the state. As of that year, three had done so. During, no full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Iowa. 66 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Iowa Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 3 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 0.2 Number of charter public school students 322 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference 0.1 White 40 79-39 Black 35 5 30 Hispanic 13 10 3 Asian 3 2 1 Other 9 4 5 minority Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 60 21 39 78 41 37 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 78 41 37 City 33 17 16 Suburb 0 8-8 Town 33 24 9 Rural 33 51-18 nonsuburban 100 92 8 2014-15 0 2010-11 1 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 2014-15 0 number 2009-10 1 2010-11 2 2011-12 3 2012-13 0 0 number 1 6 Average annual open rate 6.7% Average annual closure rate 40.0% THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 67

Iowa Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 0 Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 0 Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 0 Vocational training 67% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. conversions 2014-15 Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers 0 67% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Number of charter schools Average number of charters per authorizer 100 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 3 3 1 100 SEAs - - - - ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 68 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Kansas Kansas enacted its charter public school law in 1994. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, Kansas law ranked #42 out of 43, making it one of the weakest laws in the country. While the law does not cap charter school growth, it allows only local school district authorizers and provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Kansas movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 11 charter public schools and 2,677 charter public school students in Kansas, constituting 1 percent of the state s public schools and 1 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 In, charter public schools in Kansas served lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority students (11 percentage points less) and free and reduced-price lunch students (27 percentage points less) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 100 percent of charter public schools were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 88 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, zero new charter public schools opened in Kansas. Between 2009-10 and, 25 charter public schools closed in Kansas, a 45.5 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 45 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. In 2014-15, 91 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 9 percent were conversions. Only local school districts are allowed to authorize in the state. As of 2014-15, 11 had done so. In, two full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Kansas, serving 785 students (18 percent of the state s charter public school population). 69

Kansas Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 11 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 2,677 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 77 66 11 Black 6 7-1 Hispanic 10 18-8 Asian 1 3-2 Other 6 6 0 minority 23 34-11 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 23 50-27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 50-27 City 7 18-11 Suburb 0 12-12 Town 20 25-5 Rural 73 45 28 nonsuburban 100 88 12 2014-15 0 2010-11 0 2011-12 0 2012-13 0 0 2014-15 0 number 2009-10 11 2010-11 8 2011-12 2 2012-13 4 0 number 0 25 Average annual open rate 0.0% Average annual closure rate 45.5% 1 1 70 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Kansas Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 0 Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 13% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 13% Military 0 Vocational training 9% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. conversions 2014-15 Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers 91 45% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Number of charter schools Average number of charters per authorizer LEAs 11 11 1 100 SEAs - - - - ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 785 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 2 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 31 18 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer 9 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 71

Louisiana RANKING: #5 (out of 18) SCORE: 78 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Louisiana enacted its charter public school law in 1995. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #4 out of 43. Louisiana s law does not cap charter school growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. However, it also provides inequitable funding to charters. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Louisiana s charter public school movement ranked #5 out of 18, scoring 78 points out of 132. Louisiana scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, 10 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, charter public schools in Louisiana served a higher percentage of free and reducedprice lunch students (8 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In, 94 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 75 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 77 public charters opened in Louisiana, an 11.9 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 26 charter public schools closed in Louisiana, a 4.4 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 39 percent of the state s charter public schools were special-focus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (50 more days in reading and 65 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. Louisiana scored relatively low on the following indicators: During 2014-15, only two communities had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system decreased by 3 percentage points (from 31 percent to 28 percent). Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 8 percentage points (from 31 percent to 39 percent). 72 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Louisiana In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Louisiana: In 2014-15, 9 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In, charter public schools in Louisiana served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (32 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. During 2012-13, 41 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 59 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, 10 local school boards had authorized 35 charter public schools (27 percent of the state s total number of public charters), and the state board of education had authorized 97 charter public schools (73 percent). During, two full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Louisiana, serving 2,481 students (4 percent of the state s public charter population). Concluding Thoughts Louisiana has one of the strongest laws in the country. It has laid a strong foundation for the creation of a healthy charter public school movement. However, the law most needs to provide more equitable funding and facilities support to charter students. In Louisiana, a relatively high percentage of the state s public school students are charter students, showing a high demand for these innovative public school options. In Louisiana, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option. Louisiana also has a relatively high percentage of special-focus schools, showing that charters are providing a diverse array of options for students and educators. Louisiana s charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as especially demonstrated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013. It is important to note that Louisiana toughened its standards and tests in, which caused the decrease in the percentage of charters performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system as well as the increase in the percentage of charters performing in the bottom two categories. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 73

Louisiana Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 129 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 69,078 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 18 50-32 Black 74 42 32 Hispanic 4 5-1 Asian 2 1 1 Other 2 2 0 minority 82 50 32 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 9 10 74 66 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74 66 8 City 84 23 61 Suburb 6 25-19 Town 4 18-14 Rural 6 34-28 nonsuburban 94 75 19 Score 2 3 6 2 3 6 2 2 4 3 2 6 3 2 6 2014-15 2 1 1 1 2010-11 14 2011-12 13 2012-13 14 18 2014-15 18 number 77 2009-10 1 2010-11 4 2011-12 9 2012-13 6 6 number 26 Average annual open rate 11.9% 3 3 9 Average annual closure rate 4.4% 3 3 9 74 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Louisiana Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 12% STEM 8% Arts 5% Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 2% International/Foreign language 7% Montessori/Waldorf 4% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 4% Military 1% Vocational training 3% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 39% Score 2 2 4 50 4 3 12 65 4 3 12 2012-13 Difference A 9 10 1 B 22 18-4 31 28-3 2012-13 Difference D 22 28 6 F 9 11 2 31 39 8 1 3 3 0 3 0 s Grand Points 78 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 41 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 59 Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 10 35 4 27 SEAs 1 97 97 73 ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 2,481 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 2 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 4 2 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 75

Maine Maine enacted its charter public school law in 2011. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #6 out of 43. Maine s relatively new law allows multiple authorizers via local school districts and a new statewide authorizer, has strong quality control components, provides operational autonomy to charter public schools, and provides equitable operational funding to charter public schools. The two major weaknesses of the law include a cap of 10 state-authorized charter public schools during the initial 10 years that the law is in effect (there is no cap on the number of charters that local school districts can approve) and a relatively small number of provisions for supporting charters facility needs. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Maine s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were six charter public schools and 857 charter public school students in Maine, constituting 1 percent of the state s public schools and.5 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, on average, charter public schools in Maine served lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority students (2 percentage points less) and free and reduced-price lunch students (22 percentage points less) as compared with traditional public schools. 76 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Maine Between 2012-13 and 2014-15, all six of Maine s charter public schools opened, a 20 percent average annual open rate. In 2012-13, 50 percent of the state s charter public schools were special-focus schools. During 2014-15, 100 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups. The state charter schools commission is the sole authorizer in the state. As of 2014-15, it had authorized six charter public schools. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 77

Maine Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 6 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 857 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference 1 0.5 White 93 91 2 Black 4 3 1 Hispanic 1 2-1 Asian 1 2-1 Other 1 2-1 minority 7 9-2 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 24 66-42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 66-42 City N/A N/A N/A Suburb N/A N/A N/A Town N/A N/A N/A Rural N/A N/A N/A nonsuburban N/A N/A N/A 2014-15 0 2010-11 - 2011-12 0 2012-13 2 3 2014-15 1 number 2009-10 - 2010-11 - 2011-12 - 2012-13 0 0 number 6 0 Average annual open rate 20.0% Average annual closure rate 0.0% 78 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Maine Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 0 STEM 50% Arts 0 Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 0 Montessori/Waldorf 50% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 0 Military 0 Vocational training 0 Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 100 50% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs - - - - SEAs - - - - ICBs 1 6 6 100 NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 0 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 79

Maryland Maryland enacted its charter public school law in 2003. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #43 out of 43, making it the weakest law in the country. While the law does not cap charter school growth, it allows only local school district authorizers and provides little autonomy, insufficient accountability, and inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Maryland s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, there were 49 charter public schools and 19,370 charter public school students in Maryland, constituting 4 percent of the state s public schools and 2 percent of the state s public school students, respectively. In, charter public schools in Maryland served a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (28 percentage points more) and free and reduced-price lunch students (21 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 74 percent of charter public schools were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 43 percent of traditional public schools. In 2014-15, only one community in the state had more than 10 percent of its public school students enrolled in charters. 80 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Maryland Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 24 new charter public schools opened in Maryland, a 9.1 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, seven charter public schools closed in Maryland, a 2.7 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 60 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. In 2014-15, 77 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 23 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, only local school districts were allowed to authorize in the state. Five of them had done so. In, no full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Maryland. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 81

Maryland Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 49 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 19,370 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 14 42-28 Black 77 34 43 Hispanic 6 14-8 Asian 1 6-5 Other 2 4-2 minority 86 58 28 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 65 44 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65 44 21 City 72 23 49 Suburb 26 57-31 Town 0 4-4 Rural 2 16-14 nonsuburban 74 43 31 2014-15 1 2010-11 9 2011-12 7 2012-13 2 3 2014-15 3 number 24 2009-10 1 2010-11 1 2011-12 0 2012-13 3 2 number 7 Average annual open rate 9.1% Average annual closure rate 2.7% 4 2 82 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Maryland Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 9% STEM 12% Arts 16% Classical 0 Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 2% International/Foreign language 5% Montessori/Waldorf 37% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 2% Military 0 Vocational training 0 Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus - - - - s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 77 60% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 23 Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 5 53 11 100 SEAs - - - - ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 83

Massachusetts RANKING: #4 (out of 18) SCORE: 82 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Massachusetts enacted its charter public school law in 1993. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #11 out of 43. Massachusetts provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability to charters, but it contains a variety of caps on charter growth, includes only a single authorizing path, and provides inequitable funding. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Massachusetts charter public school movement ranked #4 out of 18, scoring 82 points out of 132. Massachusetts scored relatively well on the following indicators: In, charter public schools in Massachusetts served a higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (16 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. Between 2009-10 and, 10 charter public schools closed in the state, a 2.5 percent average annual closure rate. In 2012-13, 44 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (36 more days in reading and 65 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. In 2012-13 and, no charter public school performed in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system. Massachusetts scored relatively low on the following indicators: In 2014-15, only 4 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, only 4 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. During 2014-15, only one community had more than 10 percent of its public school students in charters. In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Massachusetts: In, the state s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (31 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. 84 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Massachusetts In 2012-13, 53 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 38 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 27 public charters opened in the state, a 6.9 percent average annual open rate. Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 2 percentage points (from 90 percent to 92 percent). During 2014-15, 95 percent of the state s public charters were start-ups and 5 percent were conversions. The only authorizer in Massachusetts is the state board of education. As of 2014-15, the state board of education had authorized 78 public charters. During, no full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Massachusetts. Concluding Thoughts Massachusetts has a relatively good charter law, but it still needs improvements such as lifting its many restrictions on charter school growth and providing more equitable funding and facilities support to charters. In Massachusetts, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option. Massachusetts also has a relatively high percentage of special-focus schools, showing that charters are providing a diverse array of options for students and educators. Massachusetts charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as especially demonstrated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 and the state s accountability system. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 85

Massachusetts Indicator: Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 78 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 37,402 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 35 66-31 Black 29 8 21 Hispanic 27 17 10 Asian 5 6-1 Other 4 3 1 minority 65 34 31 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 54 38 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 54 38 16 City 49 17 32 Suburb 47 70-23 Town 0 2-2 Rural 4 11-7 nonsuburban 53 30 23 4 4 Score 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 6 2 2 4 2014-15 1 1 1 1 2010-11 2 2011-12 9 2012-13 7 6 2014-15 3 number 27 2009-10 1 2010-11 0 2011-12 1 2012-13 2 6 number 10 Average annual open rate 6.9% 2 3 6 Average annual closure rate 2.5% 3 3 9 86 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Massachusetts Indicator: Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 13% STEM 9% Arts 5% Classical 1% Purposely diverse 1% Single sex 0 International/Foreign language 3% Montessori/Waldorf 12% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 4% Military 0 Vocational training 1% Public policy/citizenship 0 percentage of schools that are special focus 44% Score 2 2 4 36 4 3 12 65 4 3 12 2012-13 Difference 1 59 44-15 2 31 48 17 90 92 2 2012-13 Difference 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 4 3 12 s Grand Points 82 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 95 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs - - - - SEAs 1 78 78 100 ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs - - - - NFPs - - - - Number of virtual charter school students 0 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 0 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 0 0 5 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 87

Michigan RANKING: #3 (out of 18) SCORE: 85 POINTS (out of 132) Law Summary Michigan enacted its charter public school law in 1993. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #21 out of 43. Michigan s law contains caps on charter public schools that allow for ample growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of accountability. However, it provides inadequate autonomy and inequitable funding. Health-of-the-Movement Summary Michigan s charter public school movement ranked #3 out of 18, scoring 85 points out of 132. Michigan scored relatively well on the following indicators: In 2014-15, nine communities in Michigan had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. Between 2009-10 and, 47 charters closed in Michigan, a 3.2 percent average annual closure rate. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth (43 more days in reading and 43 more days in math), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. The percentage of charter public schools performing in the top two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 10 percentage points between 2012-13 and (from 9 percent to 19 percent). Michigan scored relatively low on the following indicator: Between 2012-13 and, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 12 percentage points (from 24 percent to 36 percent). In addition to the above points, we also offer the following observations about the movement in Michigan: In 2014-15, 8 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 9 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, the state s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (39 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. 88 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Michigan In, charter public schools in Michigan served a significantly higher percentage of free and reduced-price lunch students (26 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 68 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 64 percent of traditional public schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 114 charters opened in Michigan, a 7.4 percent average annual open rate. In 2012-13, 31 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. During 2014-15, 99.7 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and.3 percent were conversions. As of 2014-15, 12 higher education institutions had authorized 253 charter public schools (82 percent of the state s total number of public charters) and 28 local school districts, intermediate school districts, and educational service agencies had authorized 54 charter public schools (18 percent). In, seven full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Michigan, serving 2,031 students (1 percent of the state s charter public school population). Concluding Thoughts Michigan has a relatively good charter law. In addition, the state has an active Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers (MCCSA) that has adopted a common set of comprehensive oversight and accountability standards that are not always required by the state s charter school law. The combination of a good law and an active MCCSA has significantly contributed to the health of the state s movement. In Michigan, charter public schools serve a higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students and free and reduced-price lunch students than traditional public schools, showing that charters are serving those students who most need a better public school option. Michigan s charter school movement has achieved relatively strong results, as especially demonstrated in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013. However, the percentage of charter public schools performing in the bottom two categories of the state s accountability system increased by 12 percentage points between 2012-13 and. Therefore, we encourage the state to prohibit schools facing closures from switching authorizers to stay open, prevent operators with poorly performing schools from opening more charters, and improve authorizer accountability (including through the broader use of authorizer standards that have been developed in the state). THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 89

Michigan Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 307 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 138,949 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 33 72-39 Black 53 15 38 Hispanic 8 6 2 Asian 3 3 0 Other 3 4-1 minority 67 28 39 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 72 46 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 72 46 26 City 52 20 32 Suburb 32 36-4 Town 4 14-10 Rural 12 30-18 nonsuburban 68 64 4 8 9 Score 2 3 6 2 3 6 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2014-15 9 3 1 3 2010-11 13 2011-12 19 2012-13 32 33 2014-15 17 number 114 2009-10 12 2010-11 4 2011-12 12 2012-13 12 7 number 47 Average annual open rate 7.4% 2 3 6 Average annual closure rate 3.2% 4 3 12 90 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Michigan Indicator Year Data Rating Weight Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 5% STEM 3% Arts 4% Classical 0.3% Purposely diverse 0 Single sex 1% International/Foreign language 4% Montessori/Waldorf 9% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 7% Military 0 Vocational training 1% Public policy/citizenship 0.3% percentage of schools that are special focus 31% Score 2 2 4 43 4 3 12 43 4 3 12 2012-13 Difference Green 9 1-8 Lime 0 18 18 9 19 10 4 3 12 2012-13 Difference 0 3 0 Orange 7 14-7 Red 17 22-5 24 36-12 s Grand Points 85 Possible Points 132 Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state's charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 99.7 Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer 0.3 Percentage of the state's charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 28 54 2 18 SEAs 1 21 21 95 ICBs - - - 0 NEGs - - - 0 HEIs 12 253 21 82 NFPs - - - 0 Number of virtual charter school students 2,031 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 7 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 1 2 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 91

Minnesota Minnesota enacted the nation s first charter public school law in 1991. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, it ranked #3 out of 43, in part due to a major overhaul of its charter public school law in 2009. Minnesota s law does not cap charter school growth, includes multiple authorizers, and provides a fair amount of autonomy and accountability. However, it provides inequitable funding to charters. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Minnesota s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. However, below we provide the data we were able to gather. Based on this information, we offer the following observations: In 2014-15, 7 percent of the state s public schools were charters. In 2014-15, 5 percent of the state s public school students were charter students. In, the state s charter public schools served a significantly higher percentage of racial and ethnic minority students (25 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In, charter public schools in Minnesota served a higher percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches (17 percentage points more) when compared with traditional public schools. In 2012-13, 76 percent of the state s public charters were located in nonsuburban areas as compared with 72 percent of traditional public schools. In 2014-15, three communities in Minnesota had more than 10 percent of their public school students in charters. 92 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Minnesota In 2012-13, 54 percent of the state s charter public schools were specialfocus schools. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, 28 public charters opened in Minnesota, a 3.5 percent average annual open rate. Between 2009-10 and, 23 public charters closed in Minnesota, a 3.1 percent average annual closure rate. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited higher academic growth in reading (14 more days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. As of 2014-15, five local school boards had authorized nine charter public schools (6 percent of the state s total number of charter public schools), seven higher education institutions had authorized 25 charter public schools (16 percent), and 12 nonprofit organizations had authorized 123 charter public schools (78 percent). In, three full-time virtual charter public schools operated in Minnesota, serving 1,761 students (4 percent of the state s charter public school population). Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter public school students exhibited lower academic growth in math (seven fewer days), on average, when compared with traditional public school students. During 2014-15, 99 percent of the state s charter public schools were start-ups and 1 percent were conversions. THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 93

Minnesota Indicator Year Data Growth Indicators 1. Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters 2. Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students 3. Percentage of students by race and ethnicity 4. Percentage of students in special populations 5. Percentage of schools by geographic distribution 6. Number of communities with more than 10 percent of students in charters 7. Average annual open rate of new charter schools over the past five years 8. Average annual closure rate of charter schools over the past five years 2014-15 2014-15 2012-13 Number of charter public schools 158 Percentage of a state s public schools that are charters Number of charter public school students 45,322 Percentage of a state s public school students that are charter students Charters Traditional Difference White 47 72-25 Black 25 9 16 Hispanic 9 8 1 Asian 14 6 8 Other 5 5 0 minority 53 28 25 Free and reduced-price lunch status Special education status English language learner status special student populations 55 38 17 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 55 38 17 City 50 19 31 Suburb 24 28-4 Town 9 22-13 Rural 17 31-14 nonsuburban 76 72 4 2014-15 3 2010-11 1 2011-12 6 2012-13 4 7 2014-15 10 number 28 2009-10 1 2010-11 6 2011-12 4 2012-13 7 10 number 28 Average annual open rate 3.5% Average annual closure rate 3.5% 7 5 94 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Minnesota Indicator Year Data Innovation Indicators 9. Percentage of charter schools with an identified special focus Quality Indicators 10. Number of additional days of learning in reading 11. Number of additional days of learning in math 12. Percentage point change in top categories in state accountability system 13. Percentage point change in bottom categories in state accountability system 2012-13 2007-08 to 2010-11 2007-08 to 2010-11 2012-13 to 2012-13 to No Excuses 2% STEM 5% Arts 4% Classical 7% Purposely diverse 1% Single sex 2% International/Foreign language 15% Montessori/Waldorf 15% Dropout/Expulsion recovery 5% Military 1% Vocational training 1% Public policy/citizenship 1% percentage of schools that are special focus s Grand Points Possible Points Items Reported but Not Scored Percentage of state s charter schools that are start-ups vs. 2014-15 conversions Charter authorizer information 2014-15 Virtual charter schools and students 14-7 - - Percentage of a state s charter schools that are start-ups Type Number of authorizers Number of charter schools 99 54% Percentage of a state s charter public schools that are conversions Average number of charters per authorizer Percentage of the state s charters authorized by this type of authorizer LEAs 5 9 2 6 SEAs - - - - ICBs - - - - NEGs - - - - HEIs 7 25 4 16 NFPs 12 123 10 78 Number of virtual charter school students 1,761 Percentage of a state s charter school student population enrolled in virtual charter schools Number of virtual charter schools 3 Percentage of a state s charter schools that are virtual charter schools 4 2 1 THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 95

Mississippi Mississippi enacted its charter school law in 2010. In our annual rankings of state charter school laws in 2011, 2012, and 2013, it ranked as the weakest law in the country. In 2013, Mississippi enacted a significant overhaul of its law. In our most recent rankings of state charter school laws, Mississippi s law ranked #17 out of 43. Under its previous charter school law, the state allowed only up to 12 chronically low-performing schools to convert to charter status; provided weak autonomy, accountability, and funding; and required applicants to apply to the state board of education. No charter schools opened under this law. Under its new charter school law, the state allows up to 15 start-ups and conversions per year; provides strong autonomy, accountability, and operational and categorical funding; and creates a new state authorizer to be the state s sole authorizing entity. The state s first two charter schools opened in August 2015. state retirement system, providing applicants in all districts with direct access to the state authorizer, and providing equitable access to capital funding and facilities. A state s charter public school movement had to meet three conditions to be scored and ranked in this year s report. First, the movement had to serve at least 2 percent of the state s public school students. Second, the state had to participate in CREDO s National Charter School Study 2013 so that we had a measure of student academic growth data for its charter public schools in comparison with its traditional public schools. Third, the state had to have a state accountability system in place that categorized all public schools on the basis of performance in 2012-13 and. Mississippi s movement did not meet at least one of these conditions, so we did not score and rank it in this year s report. Potential areas of improvement in Mississippi s law include addressing open enrollment, clarifying teacher certification requirements, providing charter teachers with access to the 96 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

THE HEALTH OF THE CHARTER PUBLIC SCHOOL MOVEMENT: 2016 97